Rejecting The "Creator" Theory

Post 029

Before I go on in this chain of logic I must plainly state that I am not under the notion that what I have written will change anyone's mind. A blog is not the place, nor does it have the space, to write the volumes of information and documentation needed.
My hope is that it simply sparks a curious thought of departure from what most people have been taught in school and accepted as truth without thinking it through. If you begin to look for it, the information is everywhere and the evidence is very clear.

Now to make my intended point;
Let's imagine I took you in a helicopter to fly over the city of New York. We see the buildings, the bridges, and the streets with all the cars and the people going their ways in their daily lives. If we focus on this amazing sight we can observe the function of an electrical system, water and waste systems, not to mention the details like the function of stores and shops and offices that keep this place working.
Now, suppose, in our helicopter ride, I offered you a fortune to come up with an explanation to how this city came to be... But be warned, I reject the "Creator Man" Theory, so don't try to feed me that trash. I want science! Science should be able to show how this city got to where it is today.

You might, because of the enticement of money or an absence of conscience, be willing to look for items and events that could be used to create a plausible idea. Perhaps billions of years of wind and elements, volcanic activity, and the action of the sea combined with Happen Chance may have brought about the structures we see. Water run off may have created the ancient "streets" and underground systems eventually evolving into what we see today. Electrical storms during this time of molten elements could have, by slow and gradual processes, been attracted into the metallic elements we now know as power-lines. We can see that a slow evolution is in fact true by looking at younger, smaller towns still in their evolutionary process. Yes, I can see plainly now, by the evidence, that there was no "creator man" in the Evolution of New York city.

Let's come back to reality.
It takes very little investigation to see that there is design, intelligence, and intentional assistance in the making of what we now call New York. In one sense of the word, the city has evolved, but in no way as the word is being used today (*1). No, it is clear that the city was created by intelligent, thoughtful intent, and furthermore, it's continued survival is dependent upon constant maintenance by the creators.
But if I have already rejected the "creator man" theory, what have I left to draw from? Nothing but pure foolishness, no matter how scientific I try to make it.
Foolishness built on foolishness is stupidity.
But if science leads to the evidence of a Creator, why is that not science? Think about it.
* * * * * * *

*1 Define Evolution:
There is a very distinct line of demarcation between the concepts of micro-evolution and macro-evolution. That line is the available information already locked in the DNA of the entity. A small town in the planes of Kansas already has the logical potential to become a city. This is micro-evolution. That small town does not have the potential to become a space station. That would be macro evolution.

Evolution: [Latin evolutio an unrolling. See EVOLVE] 1. An unfolding; a process of opening out what is contained or implied in something; a development, esp., as leading to a definite end; as, the evolution of the tragedy...- Webster's 1948 (The biological ‘addition’ to this completely abandons this definition foundation!).
*